Askel's attempt at a sleight of hand.
According to Askel, a practicing member of the Catholic Church questioning the orthodoxy of the head of the Catholic Church, is as outrageous as the head of the State of Israel questioning the orthodoxy of a member of the State of Israel! While at the same time granting that it's theoretically possible for the head of the State of Israel to be an enemy to Practicing Jews!!!!
Askel, I can certainly understand you being quite busy with life's responsibilities. Therefore I will plead that you answer the following question with one word.
In keeping with the strictest Catholic theology, is it theoretically possible for a member of the Catholic Church to be more Catholic than the Pope?
Yes or No?
The point I was trying to make is that there is no hierarchy or magisterium as such in the Judaic tradition. At the risk of stating it incorrectly, I'm under the impression that the priestly class (Cohen?) is no more and that Israel has been absent a place of worship ever since the destruction of the Temple and that synagogue (while incorporating and instilling the reality of God as literally adorable) are primarily the transmitters of faith and education in the faith rather than places of worship, per se.
In questioning the validity of a Knesset (as opposed to rabbinical) pronouncement on the relative merits of the different Jewish strains, I was asking for some insight on the nature of the State's authority in such matters.
Although Zionist Conspirator has kindly pointed out some differences between the State of Israel and what he or she believes would be a truly "Jewish" nation, I think the case can be made that the State of Israel has a great effect and may well enjoy a certain authority where the practice of Judaism is concerned. It appears that way for an outside looking in but I can't know for sure. That's why I ask questions.
In keeping with the strictest Catholic theology, is it theoretically possible for a member of the Catholic Church to be more Catholic than the Pope?
I think there are many Catholics who, understanding the reality inherent in all manner of rubrics, would never kiss the Koran and who, understanding the black and white nature of Canon Law, are still nonplussed by Blair's receiving the Eucharist when he is not a member of our closed communion.
Without a doubt, history shows that plenty of Popes were decadent, fallen or worldly men evidencing nowhere near the genuine piety, discipline or obedience to faith of their contemporary Catholic laity.
None of that diminishes the fact that the Bishop of Rome yet has a certain authority as the only who speaks ex cathedra. I think it's a testament to the enduring nature of the Church that this authority has not been abused in the past (to the detriment or adulterating of dogma) even as it's been eschewed in the present (where Popes have missed the opportunity to grant Humanae Vitae and other restatements of Catholic dogma the respect and full measure of authority they deserve).
It's exactly because of the hierarchy, Canon Law and Magisterium that indeed faithful Catholics do have grounds on which to decry and seek to amend what is inconsistent with Catholic teaching as evidenced by actions, ideologies and radical theology of their priests, bishops, cardinals and even the Pope himself.